Ever the Expert

[JohnR7]

Flavius Josephus is commonly referred to as a deliberate liar or a turn-coat.

Josephus had the favor and the protection of the Roman Governer at the time. Now I do not know what position that put him in with the Jews, but if he did not have that protection, we would not be here talking about him today.

 

[william jay schroeder]

I could've prophecised that too...


The truth is I'm a prophet! Test my prophecies and you'll see my religion as valid as the Bible....

Unless you're scared to apply your own test.



I looked I saw. And what is this "it" you're referring to?

The only thing being made fun of is your absurd assertion.


Perhaps you should've kept on forgetting?


Is that a Bible prophecy as well?

have you ever studied the prophecies in the bible. there are a lot of them, and they have all come true. Well there are a few yet to happen but there for the end days so we will see them come true later. As for your responses they are about what. to ridicule something you cant see or understand or because you hate the bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have seen this reference several times before. While Tacitus may have been an historian, he isn't quoting any source here except the Christians themselves. That can't be counted as archaeological evidence, but only as hearsay at best. Although it is amusing that he calls the Christians "abominable", "mischevious", "superstitious" and "evil".

Does he list his sources as Christians? Do you have some extra-sensory perception that gives you an insight that others do not have? Tacitus is considered an accurate historian in his time. He does not quote anything "Christian" other than give a depiction of an event in time in which he has reported on.

What is definition of archaelogical evidence and remember you must adhere to that definition for yourself as well.

That's an understatement! I have seen this reference several times before also. Flavius Josephus is commonly referred to as a deliberate liar or a turn-coat.

And this is an overly biased defamation on his reliablity. There have been only two entries in his historical documentation to ever be questioned and they are the two that mention Christ. It was not assigned to Josephus himself but to Christians tampering with the text. First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute. This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things. The two versions of Josephus are very similiar and yet they are different enough to question if there were insertions. But when you look at the two side by side they still remain a strong evidence to Jesus. The greek one says: (which is the one in question) “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.]
but the Arabic version says: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.
In the Greek he says:

For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. In the Arabic he says: And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. IN Greek he says: He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] In Arabic he says: And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.
In Greek he says: When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. In Arabic he says: Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. In Greek he says: [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” In Arabic he says: They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

When taken together if the insertions are less important and the message states in both versions that the foundation of both states that Jesus as a historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.

And the two particular passages that purport to speak of Jesus have been dismissed by scholars and even Christian apologists as forgeries.

No they have been questioned as whether there was insertions made after Josephus wrote them. They are not considered forgeries at all.

But even if Josephus and Eusebius weren't post-edited, or deliberately lying, as virtually everyone says they were, we're still talking about someone from a whole other century, not someone with first-hand knowledge, and certainly not anything like archaeological evidence!

Josephus was born in 37 AD and died in 101. So it is more like a few decades from the time of Christ. This is more "first-hand" than other historical manuscripts. There is rarely historical documentation so close to the actual time of the event as this is. Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate. Aristotle lived around 350 BC. The earliest copy of his epic poems comes from A.D.1100 -- over 1,400 years after his death. These are considered to be archaelogocial evidence so the only reason that I can think of that you feel that the Josephus manuscripts are not is due to bias or an a priori mindset.

And a few years ago, I checked the record of all solar eclipses ever recorded, and (as I remember) there were none visible in Judea until the very end of the 1st century. What is this document Tacitus is supposed to be quoting from? How do we know that it too isn't just quoting the Christian dogma, and not necessarily any independantly-verifiable facts?

We can not have conclusive proof that it is not. But in regard to Tacitus he was not the author of this. "Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]"

Thallus in this quote is explaining away the eclipse which means probably that he was not wanting to support the Christian view that the eclipse was due to Christ's crucifixion.

There you have it. Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Duayne Gish, Ken Hamm, Henry Morris, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, and Jimmy Swaggart must not be Christians.

What!!!! Ad hominem attacks do not constitute good argumentation in my mind.

So here again, we have someone witnessing early Christianity, not Christ, and who described this religion as superstition. Note that he was also apparently unaware of any hours of darkness when there shouldn't have been. Nor was he aware of any zombies wandering the streets of Judea on that, or any other day, and this includes the supposedly resurrected Christ. Niether can he verify that Jesus was crucified, or that he even existed at all.

As stated this source speaks of Jesus and His teachings. So it is a reference to Jesus and that he taught his followers. The hours of darkness were spoken of and as far as "zombies" we do not have any references for them but that doesn't mean they are false either. I have given you references that speak abou the resurrected Christ and those that state He was crucified so I don't know why you say that.

Once again, we all knew that Christians did exist whether Jesus did or not.

These sources are claiming that He did. And this is supportive archeological evidence of His existance.

And Trajan gives no indication that he did. It is also worth noting that the reprehensible treatment of the Christians was repeated by the Christians once they assumed dominance.

Are you saying that the reprehensible treatment was fabricated by Christians? Trajan himself said to Pliny:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

So he knows that Christians worshiped Christ and so it was punished but if they renounced Him and worshipped his gods they should be pardoned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Continued from previous post:

I fear this will also be the case if the Christian Right is successful in integrating their religious agenda into the federal government. [/QUOTE]

I fear that with the misquided outlook you state that there is a danger but it is to Christians. Christians have been in "force" since this country was started and the government was ran by the religious men of old. It has never been a problem, what is happening now is that secular society wants to eliminate anything Christian in nature and then claims that it is the Christians causing all the problems. The Christian faith has been a part(in so much as the doctrine of those who wrote it) of government from the very beginning. Some of those who wrote the constitution of the US and other early governmental manuscripts were Christian and others were Deists but nearly all were God believing men who put forth that as a foundation to build this nation.

I further fear that will pave the way for the persecution of you and me both once the Muslims achieve a majority power in this country.

I too fear this a possibility but it is not due to Christianity or The Christian right. But again we must stay focused and this is off topic.

I have several problems with this. (1) Yeshu isn't Yeshua, (2) "Hangiing" is a far cry from crucifixion. (3) Sorcery (then as now) can mean many things, and usually doesn't mean that the practitioner has any real powers.

1. http://www.ariel.org/qayeshua.htmlThe name Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshua. The meaning comes from the Hebrew root, yasha, meaning "to save." That is why He was named Yeshua, because He will "save" His people from their sins (Mt. 1:21). Thus, Yeshua means "salvation."

The English name, Jesus, is just a transmigration through several languages. Hebrew has an "sh" sound, Greek has a hard "s"; the Hebrew "y" changes to a Greek "i"; then through Latin to the English "j." Vowel patterns change; this is simply the nature of languages. His name shifts from the Hebrew Yeshua, to the Greek Iesous, to Latin Iesus, to English Jesus. So, Jesus is not a substitute name for Yeshua, it is the English equivalent.

The English name Joshua can be a translation of two different Hebrew names. The Joshua of the Book of Joshua has the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means "Jehovah is salvation." But the Joshua who is the High Priest of the Books of Ezra and Zechariah has the name Yeshua, the same name as Jesus.

However, Yeshu is a rabbinic name for Him which is a deliberate slur. They drop the last letter (the "ah" sound) of His four-letter Hebrew name to avoid the implication of Him representing "salvation." Then they use the first three letters as an acronym: Yimach SHmo V'zichrono, meaning, "may his name and memory be blotted out." Yeshu is a rabbinic "word play"; it is not His actual name.

2. Is this reference to my statement or one that you are making?
3. My only claim is that in antiquity there are references to His miracles. If you wish to dismiss them as improbable then that is your choice. You asked for sources that cited His miracles and this substanciates them.

This is more verification of the indisputable fact that there were Christians, but not that their god really existed in any form.

As there is no mention of Christ I will concede that this does not give historical support to Jesus Himself but it does give evidence that under extreme circumstances His diciples refused to denounce Him.

Once again, we have no more verification of Jesus' actual existence than we do for Dionysus or Krsna. These beliefs are still impressed upon converts and taken quite on faith.

Please give me examples that refer to Krishna or Dionysus in sources other than their own religious dogma. Please cite those "outside" sources that claim they were crucified or that they lived at all.

Bar-Serapion associates "the wise king" with other figures who are known to exist. But that still doesn't confirm that this "wise king" ever did, which he certainly didn't, at least in the capacity of a monarch.

He is talking about real people here and then simply brings in a mythical figure for what purpose? This just isn't logical.

Evangelism and "witnessing" things which you have never actually witnessed, - are at best anecdotal, and not archaeological evidence of any kind.

This is evidence that such beliefs existed only a century and a half after Christ. This is very supportive of the beliefs held by the early Christians and far closer to the actual time of Christ than most historical references of other figures in history.

Please. Because what you've presented so far indicates that James' ossuary could have been the only archaeological evidence of Jesus, but that there is no other in the absence of that.

You talk of double standards and dishonesty on the side of creationists and then you say this? I fear that blindness is not only a disability on the side of creationists. I would hope that you would be consistant with your admission of what constitutes evidence and what does not. You use as "evidence" such as other religious manuscripts and claim them as valid but when non-biblical sources are shown you call them non-archaelogical. It seems to me that by using non-Biblical sources to document Biblical concepts would be far better than citing other religious dogma as "more" archaeological.

My apologies. My experience in debating creationists has been that all manner of intellectual dishonesty may be employed. So I get a bit suspicious when questions are snipped, and ignored(?)

Apology accepted.

For instance, I'm still wondering why you snipped all my questions about the other spells in Leviticus:

What symbolic meaning do they ascribe for the magic wand? Or for why each elemental point of the pentacle should be represented in the spell? Or for what any of this silliness has to do with getting rid of parasites, (which the Bible calls Leprosy)?

Should we test this spell too? No doubt it will work if you include the bit about washing and shaving your subject, and keeping him naked in isolation for a week. But what effect does the rest of the spell have? And would we alter its effectiveness if we used a plastic bowl instead of earthenware? Will tap water count as "running"? What if we released the 2nd bird in a parking lot? Or the woods? What if there was no 2nd bird? What if we never killed the first bird, but simply drew blood from it, and sprinkled that all over everything? What if we used a bat instead? Does it have to be a flying thing? And why?

What about the other version of this spell, which is also used to rid a house of "leprosy"? [mold?] What effect does these herbs and string have against mold? Or leprosy, since this is the same "law" whether it is leprosy of the skin or leprosy of plaster walls. Were these people suffering from some fungal infection that caused scabs in the skin and spread across walls and other things?

I have found in this thread that these types of issues are based on your interpretation and on mine. I find that we both feel we hold the correct interpretation and so this argument becomes redundant and somewhat boring. I would be glad to answer anything that I miss or snip if you really feel it is important to our discussion; so feel free to bring them up as you have here.

On this particular quote, I felt it was not worth my time arguing as you are very set into your position and I in mine. It becomes more subjective rather than evident. The same goes for the quotes on the Sotah ritual. It is to my mind somewhat frustrating that you claim that your interpretation is more valid than mine when it is something that can not be conclusive in either case. I am going by what the words (or wording) of the text. If you bring in another word and claim it is there when it is not then I can't agrue against a straw man. So I have determined that the best time spent is on those areas that reduce interpretation as much as possible. I also feel that sometimes it is best to condense the argument. Some quotes relate to others and can be answered at the same time.

 

[Nathan Poe]

have you ever studied the prophecies in the bible. there are a lot of them, and they have all come true.

I have studied the prophecies. Most of them are vague and easily "fulfilled." Many others have been forcibly shoehorned to apply to unrelated events. Still others were "fulfilled" by those who were well aware of their existence, and had everythign to gain by seeing to it that they were "fulfilled."

You will understand if I am less than impressed.

Well there are a few yet to happen but there for the end days so we will see them come true later.

Just like mine will.

Keep chanting that the end is coming; statistically, you've got to be right sooner or later.

As for your responses they are about what. to ridicule something you cant see or understand or because you hate the bible.

I don't hate the Bible, and what does the Bible have to do with your absurd assertions about it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I thought I told you everything you needed to know about this series, and apologized that I couldn't find the link to the other one anymore. But I didn't realize that you couldn't trace the URL back to the right site, because I pulled the image from the wrong one. You can see the whole series here:
Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry

Thank you for the link. Your claim was originally that the earliest depictions of "my" God were this Duc de Berry's paintings.

When in actuality there are numerous ones that are earlier and some at the same time period that never depict Christ in this manner. In fact, De Berry is the only one that seems to present Him in this way.
http://www.unf.edu/classes/freshmancore/core1images/jesus-icon-sinai6c.jpg

These Books of hours that were commissioned and in which de Berry was were created for wealthy people and very often the ideas and desires of the people they were commissioned for gave way for the finished product. Here is list of links that show depictions of Christ.

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/mcguire/relg216b.htm#sectiontwo

http://www.5ci.lt/users/nura/02.html

 

[william jay schroeder]

I have studied the prophecies. Most of them are vague and easily "fulfilled." Many others have been forcibly shoehorned to apply to unrelated events.

i dont think they are vague or easily fulfilled pleasew give me a example of what you think is vague and easily fullfilled.

Still others were "fulfilled" by those who were well aware of their existence, and had everythign to gain by seeing to it that they were "fulfilled."

Most were about Christ who i believed was crucified and gained nothing during his life. unless of course bringing peace to the world was a goal of his. which it wasnt. he died to save us from sin.

You will understand if I am less than impressed.



Just like mine will.

Keep chanting that the end is coming; statistically, you've got to be right sooner or later.



I don't hate the Bible, and what does the Bible have to do with your absurd assertions about it?

well i doubt you did it with the intention of not caring if it was true or not. and i doubt you did it very well or with someone that could show were you might get things wrong. but whatever, you can believe what you want. And read things the way you want., as can I.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That has yet to be seen. Eliminating one parallel doesn't negate them all. She did still sacrifice herself, and did return from the dead after three days. And I am unaware of any reference to the "crucified redeemer" anywhere in the OT. So you're going to have to show me where it says anything about that.

Zechariah 12:10 “They will look on me, the one they have pierced…”
Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

For the Redeemer:

Job 19:25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:

Psalms 78:35 And they remembered that God [was] their rock, and the high God their redeemer.
Proverbs 23:11 For their redeemer [is] mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.
Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD., 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, [and] ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. , 63:16 Doubtless thou [art] our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, [art] our father, our redeemer; thy name [is] from everlasting.
Jerimiah 50:34 Their Redeemer [is] strong; the LORD of hosts [is] his name: he shall throughly plead their cause, that he may give rest to the land, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.

Thank you.

You are welcome.

I need to see it.

Examples above.

Then the two other chaps beside Jesus weren't actually crucified either, and neither were any of those other people who were bound to crosses, or trees, or cliffs. Because most of the time, crucifixion didn't involve nails. Apart from that, there is nothing to distinguish Prometheus' crucifixion from any other. Were he not immortal, the end result would have been the same.

There is nothing to confirm or deny that the ones beside Christ were not nailed to the posts they were on. The Roman crucifixtion did involve nails.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html

Did you ever see Arnold Swartzenegger's Conan the Barbarian?

Another movie?

He was set upon by a vulture while he was bound, arms outstretched, to a tree. The sentence was crucifixion, and that exact word was used. But that scene was inspired by Prometheus, not Jesus. Coincidentally, the score was even distributed by Prometheus records.

And this is suppose to be evidence of something?

Then you aren't really "re-born", are you?

To be re-born one must be born from a rock? Sorry I don't think that Christian theology claims this to be a prerequiste to being born again.


I don't think so. In fact, I would bet not. What have you got?

I've shown above some and here is one for the Son of God reference from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

4Q246 “Affliction will come to earth...[] and great carnage among countries...[] the kings of Assyria [and Eg]ypt...[he] will be great on earth...all will serve...he will be called great...and by his name he will be designated...’Son of God’ will he be called and ‘Son of the Most High’ they will call him....His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom and all his ways will be truth. He will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth and all provinces will worship him. The great God will be his patron...His sovereignty is everlasting sovereignty...” (Shanks, p. 69

When? And by whom? Because from what I can see, it hasn't been, and couldn't have been.

Okay, since I can't remember right now who, what and where this is I will ask you to provide the evidence of it. Since you made the claim it really is your responsibility to provide the evidence for this. So you do that and I will find my source for the refuted claim author. Deal?

Prove it. Show me [1.] where the OT says that Jesus (or the messiah) would be born from God's union with a mortal woman, (which already has ancient precents in paganism)

sa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[2.] that Jesus would create wine miraculously, or [3.] wine flowing where there was only water before,

Correct, there is no mention of the wedding/wine miracle in the Old Testament that I am aware of.

[4.] that the messiah would raise the dead, and specifically [5.] where the messiah would be killed and then resurrected.

Job claims that the dead will rise again due to the Risen Redeemer.
Psalms foretells the death and resurrection.

Help me out here. Because I doubt very much that these same concepts can be found anywhere in the OT.

See above.

But with this list of similarities, I have just shown that they are.

Where does it show sins, redemption for mankind and atonement.

Not yet you haven't. So far, you have only claimed that they are. I suspect this will be another of those occasions where the Bible doesn't really say what you thought it did, and must be severely "interpretated" to "mean" what you want it to.

I think they are pretty clear.

The story of Pandora's box was part of Hesiod's Works and Days, a continuation of his earlier work, Theogony written in the late 8th Century BCE.

But of course we find that most scholars agree that Genesis was written down around 1500 BC or there about. Some claim earlier.

You keep saying that. But you haven't shown it yet.
And the parallels therein still predate the Jesus miracles, which aren't detailed at all in the OT. And the exact content of the OT can't be verified beyond 2200 years ago anyway. But even if both were written at the same time, the pagan works are still talking about specific particulars of someone from their past, while the Dead Sea Scrolls are making some vague hints about an uncertain somebody in the future, and doesn't talk about any of the specific miracles which are now attributed to both Jesus and the gods of the "mystery religions".

It doesn't matter whether you attribute them to Jesus or not when discussing whether the ideas or concepts are original or earlier than the other. The Old Testament is dated prior to these concepts. I have shown that they were present in the Old Testament.

That remains to be seen. Everything we've actually said about this thus far indicates that these "mystery religions" are less of a mystery than what the Bible said prior to the Dead Sea scrolls. I mean, the Dead Sea scrolls are not worded exactly like any modern Bible, so I see no reason to assume any earlier copies were exactly verbatim with these either.

The Dead Sea Scrolls in regard to the OT writtings are representative of the ones we now have. The only differences that have been found are some copying errors such as in letters rather than meanings.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Three flood legends not middle eastern in origin.

Ancient Choctaw Legend of the Great Flood...

By W. B. Morrison

One of the most interesting things in history is the fact that almost every race, however remote may be its habitation on the face of the earth has a tradition of the Great Flood similar in many respects to the account given us in the early portion of our Bible. Students of the classics will at once recall the story of Ducalion and Phyrra, who, according to the Greek myth alone of all humanity survived the deluge on the summit of a high mountain, and repeopled the earth at the command of Zeus by throwing stones over their heads. The stones thrown by Ducalion became men, while those thrown by Phyrra became women.

But stranger yet is the fact that when the earliest explorers came to the shores of America, they found traditions of a great flood in the folklore of many Indian tribes. Some of the traditions have a remarkable likeness to the Bible account, and while a few of them were later changed or influenced by contact with Europeans, it is doubtless true that the American Indians must have learned of the Great Flood long before Columbus first touched the shores of San Salvador. Who knows but that the story in its various forms may have been carried down through the ages from the time when the ancestors of the American Indian lived in Asia? And is not the general prevalence of this remarkable legend a proof of Paul's statement that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth"?

When the missionaries first came to the Choctaws in Mississippi in 1818, this tradition was told them about as follows: In ancient times after men had lived a long period upon the earth they became very corrupt and wicked, and deluged the earth with so much blood and carnage that the Great Spirit finally decided to utterly destroy them. He, therefore, sent a prophet among them, who went from tribe to tribe and from village to village proclaiming the fearful tidings that the race was soon to be destroyed. No one paid any attention to him, however, and people went on in their wickedness as carelessly as ever. But one year, with the coming of autumn, mists and clouds gathered over the earth, so that there was no sun shining by day nor did the moon and stars light up the gloom of night. The situation grew gradually worse until the earth became shrouded in total darkness. The air was chill and all animate nature became silent. People too became silent and perplexed, but yet they gave no evidence of repenting for their evil deeds. They were compelled to find their way from place to place by light of torches.

The food that they had stored away became mouldy and unfit to eat. Soon the silence of the skies was broken by muttering thunder. As time went on, the thunderings grew louder and spread to almost every quarter of the sky. The wild beasts, overcome with terror, lost their dread of man and crept up around the village fires that gave the only relief from the general darkness and cold. People grew despondent, and the death songs were chanted everywhere. The Medicine Men could offer no explanation and had no hope to offer the striken people. But yet there was no repentance, no turning of a sinful people back to the Great Spirit - only a sullen fatalism.

One day very suddenly there came a crash of thunder much louder than had ever been heard before. The whole earth seemed to shake and tremble with the reverberation. Then, as people looked towards the north, they seemed to see a light - the first they had seen for many a long dark day. But whatever hope may have been aroused in their breasts was dissipated. For what they saw was not the return of the long lost sun, but it was the gleam of a great mountain of water, advancing in great billows from the north, covering the entire earth and destroying everything in its path. With the cry, "Oka Falamah, Oka Falamah" (the returning waters, the returning waters) the doomed people turned away in one last vain effort to escape. But there was no escape. The whole earth was soon covered even to the tops of the mountains by the vast flood, and men and animals alike perished, leaving only a desolate wilderness of waters.

Of all mankind, only one remained, and that was the mysterious prophet who had so faithfully yet vainly proclaimed the warnings of the Great Spirit. This prophet had been directed by the Great Spirit to build a raft of sassafras logs, upon which he floated safely above the destroying flood, while he gazed sadly upon the dead bodies of men and beasts as they floated past him in the dark waters.

The prophet floated aimlessly about for many weeks, until at last one day he saw a large black bird circling over his raft. He cried to it for help, but the bird only uttered a few harsh croaks and flew away to be seen no more. Some days later the prophet saw a smaller bird, bluish in color, with red beak and eyes, hovering over the raft. Again he asked this bird if there was a spot of dry land to be found anywhere in the waste of waters. It hovered over him for a few moments as if trying in its soft mournful voice to give the desired information, and then flew off towards the west where the new sun was again setting in splendor. Almost at once a strong wind arose which carried the raft in the direction in which the bird had gone. All night, it floated on under the moon and stars which shone again with renewed brightness.

When the sun rose the next morning the prophet saw in the distance an island towards which his raft seemed to be drifting. Before the sun went down again, the raft had moved along until it touched the island, and the tired prophet landed, and glad to be on the earth once more, he lay down and slept until the sun rose the next day. Much refreshed, he then began to look about the island, where to his surprise, he found every variety of animal formerly found on the earth (except the mammoth), and all the birds and fowl also. Among the birds he noticed the great black bird that had visited and deserted him upon the waters. This bird he named "fulushto" - the raven - always thereafter regarded as a bird of ill omen by the Choctaws.

He was overjoyed also to find again the little bluish bird that had hovered over him and caused the breeze to blow that brought his raft safe to the pleasant island. Because of its beauty and of its kindly deed he named this bird "Puchi Yushuba" (Lost Pigeon).

The prophet lived on this island for many days, until finally the waters passed away, and the earth once more took its former appearance, with hills, valleys, and grassy prairies. Then the strangest of all things happened Puchi Yushuba was changed by the Great Spirit into a beautiful young woman, who soon became the wife of the prophet, and by their children the world was repeopled. But the Indian people never again became so rashly disobedient to the Great Spirit, and never forgot the lesson of Oka Falamah, the "Returning Waters."

Aztec- A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a dove loose that did not return.

Ojibwe Billboard

Ojibwe people call themselves Anishanabe - which in English means simply "The People". The story of The People begins with creation and how we came to live on this part of Mother Earth.

Creation Story
When the Earth was young it had a family. The moon, or Grandmother and the sun, called Grandfather. The Creator of all of this said that the Earth was a woman - Mother Earth - because from her come all living things. Water (the oceans, lakes, rivers and streams) are her life blood nourishing and purifying her. Mother Earth was given four directions - East, South, West and North, each with physical and spiritual powers.

When Mother Earth was young Creator filled her with beauty. He sent singers in the form of birds who also carry the seeds of life to all Directions. Their were swimmers in the water. He placed plants, trees, insects, crawlers and four-leggeds on the land. And everyone lived in harmony with everyone else.

Creator, or Gitchie Manido as Ojibwe people call him, then blew into four parts of Mother Earth using the sacred Megis Shell. From the union of these four sacred elements and his breath, two-leggeds or man, was born. Thus, man was the last form of life to be put on Earth. From this original man came the Anishinabe - or The People.

There came a time when the harmonious way of life did not continue. Men and women disrespected each other, families quarreled and soon villages began arguing back and forth. This saddened Gitchie Manido greatly, but he waited. Finally, when it seemed there was no hope left, Creator decided to purify Mother Earth through the use of water. The water came, flooding the Earth, catching all of creation off guard. All but a few of each living thing survived. How could life begin again?

Waynaboozhoo, or the spirit of the original people, found himself floating on a log in the water covering Mother Earth. As he floated some of the other animals still alive would come a rest on the log. All would take turns and through this sharing they saved themselves and each other. After floating for a long time and not seeing land, Waynaboozhoo finally said, "I'm going to swim to the bottom of this water and grab a handful of Earth. With this and help from Creator, I believe we can create a new land. He dived and was gone a long time. Finally he surfaced but was so out of breath he could not speak. Then he said, "It's too deep. I can't swim fast enough to reach bottom."

Everyone on the log was silent. Finally loon, who was swimming alongside the log, spoke, "I can dive a long ways for my food. I will dive to the bottom and bring some of Earth up in my beak." Loon dived and was gone a long time. Just when the others thought she'd drowned she surfaced very weak and out of breath. "I couldn't make it. There doesn't seem to be a bottom."

Just then the helldiver came forward and offered to try. Helldiver was gone a long time too and just when everyone was about to give up hope, they saw him float to the top. He was unconscious but alive. When he awoke he said, "I am very sorry my brothers and sisters, I too couldn't reach the bottom."

Many more animals offered themselves to do the job, important to the survival of all. Mink tried but couldn't make it; otter tried and failed. Even turtle tried but didn't make it. Just when all seemed hopeless a soft voice spoke up. "I'll try," it said. When everyone turned to look, muskrat stepped forward. "I'll try," he said again. Some of the others laughed at him, but Waynaboozhoo said, "Hold it, it is not our place to judge another. That belongs to Creator and if little muskrat wants to try I think we should let him."

With that, muskrat dived down and disappeared. Waynaboozhoo and the others were sure muskrat had given up his life trying to reach the bottom . Muskrat made it to the bottom. He grabbed some Earth in his paw and with his last bit of strength pushed toward the surface. One of the animals on the log saw muskrat as he floated to the top and they pulled him onto the log. Waynaboozhoo looked him over and said, "It seems our brother went without air too long. He's dead." A song of mourning and praise began and floated over the water. Then Waynaboozhoo said, "Look! Muskrat has something in his paw." Carefully they opened it and there in Muskrat's paw was a piece of Earth. Everyone cheered. Muskrat had given up his life so that the others could begin again.

Waynaboozhoo took the piece of Earth from Muskrat's paw just as Turtle came swimming up. "Use my back to bear the weight of this piece of Earth. With Creator's help we can make a new Earth," she said. When the Earth was placed on Turtle's back the winds began to blow from each of the Four Directions. The tiny piece of Earth began to grow. Larger and larger it grew until it formed an island. And still Turtle bore the weight on her back. Waynaboozhoo began to sing and all the animals began to dance in a circle. Finally the winds ceased and water was calm and a huge island sat right in the middle of the great water.



Inca
During the period of time called the Pachachama people became very evil. They got so busy coming up with and performing evil deeds they neglected the gods. Only those in the high Andes remained uncorrupted. Two brothers who lived in the highlands noticed their llamas acting strangely. They asked the llamas why and were told that the stars had told the llamas that a great flood was coming. This flood would destroy all the life on earth. The brothers took their families and flocks into a cave on the high mountains. It started to rain and continued for four months. As the water rose the mountain grew keeping its top above the water. Eventually the rain stopped and the waters receded. The mountain returned to its original height. The shepherds repopulated the earth. The llamas remembered the flood and that is why they prefer to live in the highland areas.

 

[Nathan Poe]

i dont think they are vague or easily fulfilled pleasew give me a example of what you think is vague and easily fullfilled.

Wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters, etc. Nice vague events, without any specific time frame, describing events which have pretty much been happenening nonstop.

Why, you should see the thread around here with the claim that the "increase in earthquakes" is a sign of the end times... a real knee-slapper, I tell you.

Most were about Christ who i believed was crucified and gained nothing during his life. unless of course bringing peace to the world was a goal of his. which it wasnt. he died to save us from sin.

So say his biographers. But Christ became a martyr, and there're no shortage of people who'd die for that. His martyrdom also gives legitimacy to his beliefs, which benefits his followers, including the ones who worte about his death in the first place.

well i doubt you did it with the intention of not caring if it was true or not. and i doubt you did it very well or with someone that could show were you might get things wrong.

Say again? It's hard to follow your grammar, but I think I'm being insulted...

but whatever, you can believe what you want. And read things the way you want., as can I.

As you wish. But it may do you some good to think again before you start trotting out "prophecy" as proof of inerrancy, at least until you can refute my own prohecies.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-ra you deceive yourself well.

If that's true, at least I don't deceive myself deliberately like you do.

All religions can be tested with prophecy. look in there writings and test there prophecies. If they dont have any, you can count them out automatically.

Wrong, as always. Not all religions believe in prophesy. Some believe that the future is not set, and therefore cannot be foreseen. Some people, (like myself for example) also believe that if it could be foreseen, then we couldn't change the future any more than we could change the past. In other words, belief in prophesy is a belief in fate, and contradicts belief in free will.

if they do you can research them and see if they came true.

My family is Mormon, and I hear a lot about prophesies they made which have been fulfilled. So what does that prove?

Research the biblical prophecies and your see it proves itself true by prophecies, which is why they are in there, to prove it is the truth, and that God is the only God in the universe.

You've certainly put your foot in your mouth now, Will. Let's look at that, shall we?

Let's see, Ezekiel 26:1-14 says that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city of Tyre. And to his credit, he tried, but failed to fulfill that prophesy. Alexander the Great destroyed it. But it was rebuilt, and did not remain desolate as prophesied. That's two failed prophesies right there. But Ezekiel 29:8-13 says the whole land of Egypt would be utterly desolate, when "no foot of man nor beast shall pass through it", and neither was it to be at all inhabited for forty years. This was supposed to happen while there was still a Pharoah in power. But it never happened at all, ever. That's three strikes already. But then in the very next line (Ezekiel 29:14-15) we have yet another failed prophesy, where post-dynastic Egypt could never again rule over nations. Yet it was still a world power even into Roman times, and was certainly not a "base kingdom" despite the prophesy that it would be. Instead, it remained a cultural and intellectual hub into the 5th Century, centered around the greatest library of human knowledge ever known.

This is a tragic story. The library in Alexandria, Egypt was akin to a modern ivy league university, and it was run by an unmarried secular, pagan woman. On the orders of the Bishop, Christians mobbed the girl, drug her into a church, and skinned her alive on an alter. This sole horrific and senseless act usshered in the destruction of the library and all the works of the greatest minds of the ancient world. This in turn brought on the "dark ages" wherein the church controlled, restricted, and censored learning, while torturing and murdering pagans and skeptics and foreigners for 1,000 years, (beginning within 70 years of Constantine's conversion). When the Church finally started losing their grip of autonomous oppression, it was a Renaissance, and men could begin to learn, understand and tolerate again.

"He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do"
--John 14:12

Whoops, there's another failed prophesy!

Jesus also said that none of the apostles would even taste of death before he returned to Earth with El/Abba/Allah/Yawheh right beside him. Well, the apostles are all dead, and Jesus is over 1,900 years late. So we have lots of failed prophesies so far. What else have you got?

I should also add that even if some prophesies did come true, it still wouldn't prove that your particular god existed, or that it was the only one in the universe, if even one could be proved.

Though there is a spirit that rules the earth i think you know of him, though may not believe he exsists.

I know of lots of those; Krsna, Gaia, the Tao. But I don't know of any who actually exist.

its the other spirit, not the spirit of Christ. He is the deciever of the world, when he speaks he lies, for he is the father of it. TEST THE PROPHECIES.

Wait a minute. This is the other god, and not the only one in the universe?

You know, if I were an evil god of lies, do you know what I would do? I would plead for faith. As a liar, I would have to. I would make people believe ridiculous things which completely contradict everything we see in the real world, and I would make them believe this for literally no reason at all. I might even threaten a fate worse than death for anyone who didn't believe me, and make them fear their own reason, and denounce it. In other words, if I were Satan, I would have written the Bible, and founded a church to divide against itself into dozens of different, interconflicting denominations that not only didn't agree with each other, but who actually dispised one another in prejudice. I would teach all kinds of horrible things as if they were good things, because as an evil god, I might like the awful smell of burning flesh, or the sight of people bathing in the blood of some brutally butchered animal, or of parents eating their own children. Then I would probably have everyone believing they were worthless scum, and that they should all be lucky to humiliate themselves by kissing my feet forever. And because I am an evil god of lies, I would call that "love".

 

[Aron-Ra]

"I agree that it often *sounds* like fundamentalist Christianity. Back in my misguided, mayavadi days, I probably would have said something similar. But you must understand that anyone who is sincerely religious is going to sound fundamentalist in a forum like alt.Hindu where previously the most outspoken members demonstrate a consistent inability to stand up for any basic, religious morality like compassion for other creatures, etc. Furthermore, many here claim to believe in God, [Krsna] but then they steadfastly refuse to accept His words. [the Gita] In the face of such permissive attitudes and faithlessness, naturally we are going to sound like fundamentalists. But who should be blamed? Our great crime is that we don't compromise on our principles. If the Lord says that we should refrain from illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling, and intoxication, then we follow this instruction, regardless of how long ago it was given. Furthermore, when we say that we accept a particular [Vedic] scripture as God's instruction, we mean it; we do not simply accept 50% and reject whatever we don't like. This is foolishness."
--H. Krishna Susarla

I don't know who this is, what they believe other than what is being said here which could be misleading.

What I showed you here is that there is no significant difference between the Hindu's faith and the Christian's faith in that both make many of the same claims. This quote, albeit brief, still adequately demonstrates that. You could also read the rest of this post from H. Krishna Susarla, and possibly even email him if you get curious.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Most certainly.
But the tenets of Hinduism are not familiar.

That depends on your perspective, I guess. I work with an Indian woman who converted from Hinduism to Christianity when she moved to the U.S. But she said she became dissatisified with Christianity when she realized how much like Hinduism it was. She's a Buddhist now, and says she's never been happier.

But the fact it sounds similar was all I was going for. It doesn't matter what the tenets are. In fact, the stranger the better, I think.

You're ignoring the fact that you could probably say the same things about hundreds of millions of Christians too. You're also ignoring the quotes from George Harrison where he says the very opposite. Everything I've heard from the proponents of Krsna consciousness and their experience with their god sounds exactly like what Christians claim about their own god. I subscribe to daily emails of Hindu wisdom. I've read Probhubada, and some of their Hindu holy scriptures, visited many of their websites, watched their videos, and read many of their personal testimonies. And from this, it is evident that many many millions of Hindus do relate to that type of concept, and they proclaim it loudly, just like Christians do.

Perhaps, I have not gone to their websites. Why don't you give me the addresses of some of them and I can read it for myself. I know that you can't give them publically but pm me with them and I'll take a look.

I have already given you alt.hindu. You're not likely to get a more objective perspective than that one. If you want something more than that, I could only suggest searching on the name, Krsna. Be careful of the spelling. If you spell it wrong, you'll end up with a bunch of Christian sites trying to counter Hinduism.

I've also known many Wiccans and other pagans. One of whom, a dear old friend, expressed the same sort of spiritual enlightenment as what many Christians tell me they felt once the holy spirit came to them. My friend is no less adamant, or excited, or elated than any Christian I know about finally "meeting" his personal god. Except that in his case, he was visited by the visible and audible manifestation of Bast.

I don't doubt it. I don't doubt anyones personal experience really. There are many facets of the supernatural and they do not conflict with what the Bible states.

So you are a henotheist after all. I guess you must have skipped over Isaiah 45:5-7 then. That being the case, I guess you consider Vedic scripture to be divinely inspired also, right?

So as far as I can see, all these personal gods are all alike.

Looking from the outside in, they probably do all look alike.

According to what you just said, they look the same from the inside out too.

So, are you a henotheist then? For myself, when three different people each tell me they "know" their god personally, and each of their gods created the world without the other two, and each of them say both of the other two witnesses are "deceived", then I make what I think is a logical assumption that all of they're all probably deceived, and that none of them really knows his imaginary friend the way he says he does.

That is only your opinion and is really baseless, as you can not know what anyone else really knows.

No I don't know what someone else knows. But when two or more people each give me their "knowledge" of "absolute truth" and each one's "revelation" completely contradicts both of the other two, then it is not possible that they all "know" what they pretend to. Somebody has to be wrong, and if any one of them even can be, so can they all be. This is not just an opinion, and it is not without a sound basis in solid logic. On the other hand, your "knowledge" is just an opinion, and it is baseless, because it is based only on faith, which is the same thing as nothing at all.

That's the problem. Assuming there really is a god, and that there is only one god, then he doesn't claim anything. Instead, he just leaves all that to all the people writing all these various interconflicting, and supposedly holy books, -based on what they all want to believe he claims. But none of these authors has any more validity than any other, or else we would be able to test for these claims, and eliminate the false ones.

Actually I think that there is a way to test and eliminate the false ones but that is a personal testing process which would not be varifiable to you.

That's what I meant. None of these authors has any more validity in terms of logic or evidence such that their claims could be objectively tested in some way that is objectively verifiable, and not dependant on the preferred priori beliefs of the observer.

What if you didn't just want to believe in one particular concept to the exclusion of everything else? What if willfully convincing yourself of that one idea wasn't good enough for you? What if the only thing that was important to you was that you find out which concepts which can be tested and proven to be the most likely probable, or logically accurate? In other words, what if you only wanted to know what was really true, even if it wasn't necessarily the "truth" you hoped it would be? Then you would be where I am.

I've gone as deep as I can, and I haven't found any significant difference.

Why should I believe that? You doubt my experiences but you expect me to accept yours.

No I don't, nor do I want you to. My experience is anecdotal at best, as yours is also. Instead, I'm trying to use logic to reason with you.

Maybe it is you who does not understand. Get a dictionary. Look up 'miracle'. Now look up 'magic'. What's the difference? Both are defined as phenomenon which cannot be explained by any scientific means. Now explain the holy spirit using quantifiable, qualifiable evidence and testable [scientific] explanations. If you can't do that, then we're talking about magic. If you don't believe me, look it up. I think every dictionary you look at defines your holy ghost this way.

So if I disagree it is due to not understanding? I have a fair knowledge of the english language and understand it quite well. I don't find my experience through a dictionary.

So I guess I'm right then, and the definition of the word, "magic" does apply to your "holy ghost".

Sorry. Snake dancing, stigmata, holy visions, faith healing, exorcisms, and speaking in tongues are all the same in that they are all dependant upon an altered consciousness. The same applies to listening for those little voices in your head that so many Christians try so hard to hear, until they finally, (inevitably) do.

I have never snake danced, experienced the stigmata, had holy visions, experienced (myself) faith healing, nor exorcisms and have never spoke in tongues.

But you believe these are all legitimate just the same.

I do not hear little "voices" in my head. So I can't really address this in any meaningful way.

Hey, you said you know Jesus personally. How so? Remember what Jal said?

Read Harrison's quote again, or the testimonies of any other Krsna concious devotees. You might also want to read some of the comments from other Christian creationists like yourself who contradict you so strongly even right here on this board. Jal for example told me that you're not really Christian if you don't hear an audible voice in your head telling you to do things. You should check out HuManiTeE's and michabo's insane commentary too. I know buckets of Christians you should probably compare notes with before telling me what 'the' Christian experience is.

I'm really only interested in discussing what we can discuss in relation to our own experiences and what we can bring to the table in meaningful ways. What Harrison has to say is in no way valuable to that end to me. I can't know what Harrison thinks other than a few words put here that are not contextual or can we ask him any questions about his experience. Or any other of the people that you have quoted.

Well, Harrison is supposedly with Krsna now, and doubtless playing a duet with John Lennon. But the other people I quoted are right here in this group. And we can ask them about their experiences. This is something I've always wanted to do; get a bunch of Christians together and watch them argue with each other, with each one saying that Jesus in some way told each one that each of the others are wrong. I find that hilarious myself. It seems Jesus and Loki have something in common that way.

what then makes me believe you or think that you are not deceived in what you believe? You have been deceived in your own admission by Christianity and the Occult and who knows what else and then you sit here and tell me that I am deceived?

It is infinitely more likely that both of us are deceived than it is for either of us to know "absolute truth".

What authority do you have when you claim the same and then change your mind all the time. Seems to me that you change mindsets like others change their clothes.

One minute you praise me for graciously admitting when I was wrong, and the next, you criticize me for it. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to do as the ICR and AIG and them do? And never admit any error even if it requires me lie?

By your own admission, the crucified Orpheus was not proven false, and in fact could still be quite ancient and authentic. But since there is no way to conclusively date it, there is no need nor use in arguing for it being around prior to Jesus.

You claim for the crucified Orpheus was false...that it was prior to Christ. It can not be shown to be before Christ so your claim was proven false.

But you can't prove that it wasn't, so my claim was not proven false. You really need to learn the real meaning of "proof".

However, the only way anyone decided that it should be more recent than Jesus was when Justin Martyr made an assertion, (based only on his own ignorance and personal bias) that there weren't any pagan gods crucified before Jesus. But now that I have proven him wrong about that, (twice so far) then I suppose I should ask you the same question. Will you continue to argue for Martyr's position, now that it has been proven false?

No, you haven't. You have claimed crucifixion where there was none.

There was at least one; Prometheus. I know you probably won't admit that, but only because you feel you're forbidden to. Were you not fettered to defend your priori conclusion, your conduct would be much different.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is a tragic story. The library in Alexandria, Egypt was akin to a modern ivy league university, and it was run by an unmarried secular, pagan woman. On the orders of the Bishop, Christians mobbed the girl, drug her into a church, and skinned her alive on an alter. This sole horrific and senseless act usshered in the destruction of the library and all the works of the greatest minds of the ancient world. This in turn brought on the "dark ages" wherein the church controlled, restricted, and censored learning, while torturing and murdering pagans and skeptics and foreigners for 1,000 years, (beginning within 70 years of Constantine's conversion). When the Church finally started losing their grip of autonomous oppression, it was a Renaissance, and men could begin to learn, understand and tolerate again.

Where do you get your information?

The Life of Hypatia
From Damascius's Life of Isidore, reproduced in The Suda
Translated by Jeremiah Reedy

Reprinted with permission from Alexandria 2

HYPATIA, daughter of Theon the geometer and philosopher of Alexandria, was herself a well-known philosopher. She was the wife of the philosopher Isidorus, and she flourished under the Emperor Arcadius. Author of a commentary on Diophantus, she also wrote a work called The Astronomical Canon and a commentary on The Conics of Apollonius. She was torn apart by the Alexandrians and her body was mocked and scattered through the whole city. This happened because of envy and her outstanding wisdom especially regarding astronomy. Some say Cyril was responsible for this outrage; others blame the Alexandrians' innate ferocity and violent tendencies for they dealt with many of their bishops in the same manner, for example George and Proterius.
Regarding Hypatia the Philosopher and the Sedition of the Alexandrians

Hypatia was born, reared, and educated in Alexandria. Since she had greater genius than her father, she was not satisfied with his instruction in mathematical subjects; she also devoted herself diligently to all of philosophy.

The woman used to put on her philosopher's cloak and walk through the middle of town and publicly interpret Plato, Aristotle, or the works of any other philosopher to those who wished to hear her. In addition to her expertise in teaching she rose to the pinnacle of civic virtue. She was both just and chaste and remained always a virgin. She was so beautiful and shapely that one of her students fell in love with her and was unable to control himself and openly showed her a sign of his infatuation. Uninformed reports had Hypatia curing him of his affliction with the help of music. The truth is that the story about music is corrupt. Actually, she gathered rags that had been stained during her period and showed them to him as a sign of her unclean descent and said, "This is what you love, young man, and it isn't beautiful!" He was so affected by shame and amazement at the ugly sight that he experienced a change of heart and went away a better man.

Such was Hypatia, as articulate and eloquent in speaking as she was prudent and civil in her deeds. The whole city rightly loved her and worshipped her in a remarkable way, but the rulers of the city from the first envied her, something that often happened at Athens too. For even if philosophy itself had perished, nevertheless, its name still seems magnificent and venerable to the men who exercise leadership in the state. Thus it happened one day that Cyril, bishop of the opposition sect [i.e. Christianity] was passing by Hypatia's house, and he saw a great crowd of people and horses in front of her door. Some were arriving, some departing, and others standing around. When he asked why there was a crowd there and what all the fuss was about, he was told by her followers that it was the house of Hypatia the philosopher and she was about to greet them. When Cyril learned this he was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder and the most heinous form of murder at that. For when Hypatia emerged from her house, in her accustomed manner, a throng of merciless and ferocious men who feared neither divine punishment nor human revenge attacked and cut her down, thus committing an outrageous and disgraceful deed against their fatherland. The Emperor was angry, and he would have avenged her had not Aedesius been bribed. Thus the Emperor remitted the punishment onto his own head and family for his descendant paid the price. The memory of these events is still vivid among the Alexandrians.

This is the first English translation of this work.
Copyright 1993 by Phanes Press. All rights reserved.

And:

The Life of Hypatia
By Socrates Scholasticus, from his Ecclesiastical History

Reprinted with permission from Alexandria 2

THERE WAS a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles.* After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius.

Notes

* The Greek word is ostrakois, literally "oystershells," but the word was also applied to brick tiles used on the roofs of houses.

The Life of Hypatia
By John, Bishop of Nikiu, from his Chronicle 84.87-103

Reprinted with permission from Alexandria 2

AND IN THOSE DAYS there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through (her) Satanic wiles. And the governor of the city honored her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic. And he ceased attending church as had been his custom. But he went once under circumstances of danger. And he not only did this, but he drew many believers to her, and he himself received the unbelievers at his house. And on a certain day when they were making merry over a theatrical exhibition connected with dancers, the governor of the city published (an edict) regarding the public exhibitions in the city of Alexandria: and all the inhabitants of the city had assembled there (in the theater). Now Cyril, who had been appointed patriarch after Theophilus, was eager to gain exact intelligence regarding this edict. And there was a man named Hierax, a Christian possessing understanding and intelligence who used to mock the pagans but was a devoted adherent of the illustrious Father the patriarch and was obedient to his monitions. He was also well versed in the Christian faith. (Now this man attended the theater to learn the nature of this edict.) But when the Jews saw him in the theater they cried out and said: "This man has not come with any good purpose, but only to provoke an uproar." And Orestes the prefect was displeased with the children of the holy church, and Hierax was seized and subjected to punishment publicly in the theater, although he was wholly guiltless. And Cyril was wroth with the governor of the city for so doing, and likewise for his putting to death an illustrious monk of the convent of Pernodj [1] named Ammonius, and other monks (also). And when the chief magistrate [2] of the city heard this, he sent word to the Jews as follows: "Cease your hostilities against the Christians." But they refused to hearken to what they heard; for they gloried in the support of the prefect who was with them, and so they added outrage to outrage and plotted a massacre through a treacherous device. And they posted beside them at night in all the streets of the city certain men, while others cried out and said: "The church of the apostolic Athanasius is on fire: come to its succour, all ye Christians." And the Christians on hearing their cry came fourth quite ignorant of the treachery of the Jews. And when the Christians came forth, the Jews arose and wickedly massacred the Christians and shed the blood of many, guiltless though they were. And in the morning, when the surviving Christians heard of the wicked deed which the Jews had wrought, they betook themselves to the patriarch. And the Christians mustered all together and went and marched in wrath to the synagogues of the Jews and took possession of them, and purified them and converted them into churches. And one of them they named after the name of St. George. And as for the Jewish assassins they expelled them from the city, and pillaged all their possessions and drove them forth wholly despoiled, and Orestes the prefect was unable to render them any help. And thereafter a multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate -- now this Peter was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ -- and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her seated on a (lofty) chair; and having made her descend they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesarion. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her [till they brought her] through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire. And all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him "the new Theophilus"; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city.

Notes

1. The Coptic word for the desert of Nitria.

2. This is apparently wrong. It should be "Cyril."

Granted it is not pretty but at least documented.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This is a tragic story. The library in Alexandria, Egypt was akin to a modern ivy league university, and it was run by an unmarried secular, pagan woman. On the orders of the Bishop, Christians mobbed the girl, drug her into a church, and skinned her alive on an alter. This sole horrific and senseless act usshered in the destruction of the library and all the works of the greatest minds of the ancient world. This in turn brought on the "dark ages" wherein the church controlled, restricted, and censored learning, while torturing and murdering pagans and skeptics and foreigners for 1,000 years, (beginning within 70 years of Constantine's conversion). When the Church finally started losing their grip of autonomous oppression, it was a Renaissance, and men could begin to learn, understand and tolerate again.

Where do you get your information?

Numerous sources. Hypatia is one of my favorite historical figures. Boadicca is another. Why? Did you think there was something wrong with what I said? If so, what?

The Life of Hypatia
From Damascius's Life of Isidore, reproduced in The Suda
Translated by Jeremiah Reedy

Reprinted with permission from Alexandria 2

HYPATIA, daughter of Theon the geometer and philosopher of Alexandria, was herself a well-known philosopher. She was the wife of the philosopher Isidorus,

I had never read this peice. But nothing I ever read mentioned any husband. Not surprising since she apparently had no kind of relationship with him if she had a husband. In fact, I have read a number of subtle insinuations that she was lesbian due to the unlikely combination of her beauty and chastity. A beautiful teenager is one thing. But Hypatia was 45-60 years old when she died. That's not chastity anymore, and it certainly doesn't imply any husband.

But I did see a couple of comments to the effect that she was never married. Sagan even mentioned it on one of the Cosmos episodes, if I remember correctly. So I stand by that. After all, a marriage never consumated is no marriage at all, especially when the not-so-significant other is utterly absent from most accounts of her life.

Hypatia was born, reared, and educated in Alexandria. Since she had greater genius than her father, she was not satisfied with his instruction in mathematical subjects; she also devoted herself diligently to all of philosophy.

I find the disrespectful tone of this line objectionable. Every reference I have ever read or heard indicated that Hypatia was well-tutored by her father, that they were very close, and that he raised her as "the perfect human", and inspired her to excel beyond even him, despite the fact that he was one of the most educated men in Alexandria. That doesn't leave much room for her to be dissatisfied his instruction.

The Life of Hypatia
By Socrates Scholasticus, from his Ecclesiastical History

it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles.*

* The Greek word is ostrakois, literally "oystershells," but the word was also applied to brick tiles used on the roofs of houses.

Here's the version I usually hear:

"They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and armed with abalone shells, flayed the flesh from her bones."
--"Great Philosophers" Oregon State University

The Life of Hypatia
By John, Bishop of Nikiu, from his Chronicle 84.87-103

Reprinted with permission from Alexandria 2

AND IN THOSE DAYS there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through (her) Satanic wiles.

You dare ask me where I get my information, and you're quoting this?!

Hypatia was taught comparative religion, and saw her homeland in the midst of religious riots throughout the 390s. In addition, as the librarian of Alexandria, she was already at the center of secularism. There was no magic, and damned-sure wasn't any Satanism in her. Where do you get your information?

"To rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force."
--Hypatia

And the governor of the city honored her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic.

....awoke his reason perhaps?

"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child-mind accepts and believes them, and only after great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after-years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable."
--Hypatia of Alexandria

And he ceased attending church as had been his custom. But he went once under circumstances of danger. And he not only did this, but he drew many believers to her, and he himself received the unbelievers at his house. And on a certain day when they were making merry over a theatrical exhibition connected with dancers, the governor of the city published (an edict) regarding the public exhibitions in the city of Alexandria: and all the inhabitants of the city had assembled there (in the theater). Now Cyril, who had been appointed patriarch after Theophilus, was eager to gain exact intelligence regarding this edict. And there was a man named Hierax, a Christian possessing understanding and intelligence who used to mock the pagans but was a devoted adherent of the illustrious Father the patriarch and was obedient to his monitions. He was also well versed in the Christian faith.

Where did you life this quote from? One of you uber-religious sites no doubt. No wonder this has such a weird and grossly inaccurate spin to it.

thereafter a multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate -- now this Peter was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ -- and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her seated on a (lofty) chair; and having made her descend they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesarion. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her [till they brought her] through the streets of the city till she died.

She was dead before then because they ripped her bits in the church, although this obviously very Christian commenter won't want to admit that.

And all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him "the new Theophilus"; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city.

Bishop Cyril was made a saint because of that inhuman atrocity, and the Christian community praised him for his cruelty.

"The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
--Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

Granted it is not pretty but at least documented.

Yes, but the last one completed contradicted all the others, and was documented very badly.

"Historians are uncertain of different aspects of Hypatia's life."
--agnesscott.edu

However, my comment that Hypatia was raised to be secular was also documented in Elbert Hubbard's 1928 essay on Hypatia.

"All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final. Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than to not think at all."
--Theon, astronomer of Alexandria, to his daughter, Hypatia

Everything I said in my quoted paragraph at top is correct so far as can be verified at this time.

 

[JohnR7]

are you just toeing the party line?

I do not think that I have to worry about anyone accusing me of toeing any sort of a party line. Nor would anyone have accused Jesus of toeing a party line.

 

[Aron-Ra]

While Tacitus may have been an historian, he isn't quoting any source here except the Christians themselves.

Does he list his sources as Christians? Do you have some extra-sensory perception that gives you an insight that others do not have? Tacitus is considered an accurate historian in his time. He does not quote anything "Christian" other than give a depiction of an event in time in which he has reported on.

You misunderstand me. But it is not your fault. This was a critical typo. It should have read;
While Tacitus may have been an historian, he apparently isn't quoting any source here except the Christians themselves.

What is definition of archaelogical evidence and remember you must adhere to that definition for yourself as well.

Yes, therein lies the problem. You grossly misunderstood this entire post. A few years ago, an international collective of archaeologists, (including many Christian archaeologists) unanemously declared two things: First, that James' ossuary, if legitimate, would be the first actual archaeological evidence of Jesus' existence. And second, they discovered that the ossuary was, well, I don't think they proved it was fake. But I think they all decided that it probably was. I don't remember why. Anyway, it was the archaeologists of the world who said there was no evidence of Jesus, not me. I personally believe Yeshua bar Yosseff did exist, and so do most of the archaeologists I'm talking about. But we can't confirm that with any historic document or artifact known to exist.

Flavius Josephus is commonly referred to as a deliberate liar or a turn-coat.

And this is an overly biased defamation on his reliablity.

No, it isn't. Its a statement of fact. You said there was contraversy over the accuracy, and I agreed with you because so many people, (including Christians) distrust this guy for so many different reasons.

There have been only two entries in his historical documentation to ever be questioned and they are the two that mention Christ. It was not assigned to Josephus himself but to Christians tampering with the text. First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic.

Yeah, and the crucified Orpheus might be too. But according to you, that's the same thing as being proven wrong.

The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute. This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things.

Of course he knew about New Testament things. That's when and where he lived. Stories of Herod and Pilate and Judeah would all be familiar to him. So what?

The two versions of Josephus are very similiar and yet they are different enough to question if there were insertions. But when you look at the two side by side they still remain a strong evidence to Jesus. The greek one says: (which is the one in question) “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.]
but the Arabic version says: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.
In the Greek he says:

For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. In the Arabic he says: And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. IN Greek he says: He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] In Arabic he says: And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.
In Greek he says: When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. In Arabic he says: Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. In Greek he says: [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” In Arabic he says: They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

When taken together if the insertions are less important and the message states in both versions that the foundation of both states that Jesus as a historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.

We have plenty of circumstantial evidence (I think) to conclude that Yeshua bar Yosseff really lived, just like we do for Zoroaster. But we don't have any archaeological evidence of either one. No birth records, death warrants, nor any other kind of cooberative evidence to even be sure of when either person lived or died. We literally have more archaeological evidence to indicate exactly when Odin really lived than we do for Jesus or Zarathustra.

No they have been questioned as whether there was insertions made after Josephus wrote them. They are not considered forgeries at all.

Then why do so many independant sources all over the web cite authority claims of forgery?

Josephus was born in 37 AD and died in 101. So it is more like a few decades from the time of Christ. This is more "first-hand" than other historical manuscripts. There is rarely historical documentation so close to the actual time of the event as this is.

But it still comes down to him, (and all these other guys) saying "I heard [at least mostly from Christians] that there was this Jesus guy..." -and nothing more solid than that except in the gospels themselves. And they're ...well...highly questionable.

Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate. Aristotle lived around 350 BC. The earliest copy of his epic poems comes from A.D.1100 -- over 1,400 years after his death. These are considered to be archaelogocial evidence so the only reason that I can think of that you feel that the Josephus manuscripts are not is due to bias or an a priori mindset.

Hopefully now you realize that isn't true.

What is this document Tacitus is supposed to be quoting from? How do we know that it too isn't just quoting the Christian dogma, and not necessarily any independantly-verifiable facts?

We can not have conclusive proof that it is not.

But we don't have any solid reason to believe it is either. Do you understand?

But in regard to Tacitus he was not the author of this. "Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]"

Thallus in this quote is explaining away the eclipse which means probably that he was not wanting to support the Christian view that the eclipse was due to Christ's crucifixion.

You've already given me this quote, and I have already addressed it. But what you have not addressed is why no one in the court of Pilate, nor Pliny the Elder, nor anyone else ever produced any documentation from that actual period to indicate that any such thing ever happened. And with so many Mithraists and others in the seats of power so heavily into astrology at the time, one would think there would be quite a lot written by several people about an event like that.

There you have it. Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Duayne Gish, Ken Hamm, Henry Morris, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, and Jimmy Swaggart must not be Christians.

What!!!! Ad hominem attacks do not constitute good argumentation in my mind.

The preceding paragraph said that early Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up;" But all the people I just listed lie for a living, and some of them have committed fraud several times, and/or adultery as well. Ever watch Kenneth Copeland pandering for prayer gifts? Do you remember when God was supposed to kill Oral Roberts unless he could raise the eight million dollars to fund his own pet project? Do you remember Swaggart's escapades with the prostitute? Or Kent Hovind's myriad frauds, scams, bald-faced lies and multiple convictions for decades of tax evasion? These are not ad hominem attacks. I'm just reminded of some amusing facts in light of that quote, that's all.

As stated this source speaks of Jesus and His teachings. So it is a reference to Jesus and that he taught his followers. The hours of darkness were spoken of

By only one person inthe whole world, and we can't even begin to verify that one.

and as far as "zombies" we do not have any references for them but that doesn't mean they are false either.

Do you really think we could still have so many records of so many other oh-so mundane affairs here and there, but absolutely no one even thought it noteworthy when Night of the Living Dead were dancing the Thriller in downtown Judea? That story would have been much bigger news than everything Jesus was supposed to have done all put together!

I have given you references that speak abou the resurrected Christ and those that state He was crucified so I don't know why you say that.

You haven't shown me anything for the alleged resurrection yet. So far, we've only been trying to find conclusive proof that he ever lived the first time.

Once again, we all knew that Christians did exist whether Jesus did or not.

These sources are claiming that He did. And this is supportive archeological evidence of His existance.

No it isn't. Go to sci.archaeology.moderated, where I have already typed the search words "Is there any archaeological evidence of Jesus?" Or go to any archaeology forum and tell them that. See if they answer you the way they do in publication. Hearsay can't be archaeological evidence. Archaeologists are still looking for something much more solid than that before they would call it such.

It is also worth noting that the reprehensible treatment of the Christians was repeated by the Christians once they assumed dominance.

Are you saying that the reprehensible treatment was fabricated by Christians?

No. You're not paying attention again, because I didn't say, (or in any way imply) anything like that. I was pointing out that Christians in power acted just as badly as those of any other religion, so what makes them so special?

Trajan himself said to Pliny:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

So he knows that Christians worshiped Christ and so it was punished but if they renounced Him and worshipped his gods they should be pardoned.

You need to pay more attention, and read through these posts before replying to them. You have already shown me this quote, and I have already addressed it. Go back and read it again, and maybe it will make sense to you this time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Numerous sources. Hypatia is one of my favorite historical figures. Boadicca is another. Why? Did you think there was something wrong with what I said? If so, what?
I had never read this peice. But nothing I ever read mentioned any husband. Not surprising since she apparently had no kind of relationship with him if she had a husband. In fact, I have read a number of subtle insinuations that she was lesbian due to the unlikely combination of her beauty and chastity. A beautiful teenager is one thing. But Hypatia was 45-60 years old when she died. That's not chastity anymore, and it certainly doesn't imply any husband.

But I did see a couple of comments to the effect that she was never married. Sagan even mentioned it on one of the Cosmos episodes, if I remember correctly. So I stand by that. After all, a marriage never consumated is no marriage at all, especially when the not-so-significant other is utterly absent from most accounts of her life.
I find the disrespectful tone of this line objectionable. Every reference I have ever read or heard indicated that Hypatia was well-tutored by her father, that they were very close, and that he raised her as "the perfect human", and inspired her to excel beyond even him, despite the fact that he was one of the most educated men in Alexandria. That doesn't leave much room for her to be dissatisfied his instruction.
Here's the version I usually hear:

"They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and armed with abalone shells, flayed the flesh from her bones."
--"Great Philosophers" Oregon State University
You dare ask me where I get my information, and you're quoting this?!

Hypatia was taught comparative religion, and saw her homeland in the midst of religious riots throughout the 390s. In addition, as the librarian of Alexandria, she was already at the center of secularism. There was no magic, and damned-sure wasn't any Satanism in her. Where do you get your information?

"To rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force."
--Hypatia
....awoke his reason perhaps?

"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child-mind accepts and believes them, and only after great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after-years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable."
--Hypatia of Alexandria
Where did you life this quote from? One of you uber-religious sites no doubt. No wonder this has such a weird and grossly inaccurate spin to it.
She was dead before then because they ripped her bits in the church, although this obviously very Christian commenter won't want to admit that.
Bishop Cyril was made a saint because of that inhuman atrocity, and the Christian community praised him for his cruelty.

"The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
--Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
Yes, but the last one completed contradicted all the others, and was documented very badly.

"Historians are uncertain of different aspects of Hypatia's life."
--agnesscott.edu

However, my comment that Hypatia was raised to be secular was also documented in Elbert Hubbard's 1928 essay on Hypatia.

"All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final. Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than to not think at all."
--Theon, astronomer of Alexandria, to his daughter, Hypatia

Everything I said in my quoted paragraph at top is correct so far as can be verified at this time.

These three quotes are from sources from that time period, I gave you the authors. I got all three from this link http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://cosmopolis.com/people/hypatia.html

I too knew the story but had not heard that she was the reason the library was burned, as there is no known history to cite who burned the library. There are three current theories but none can be confirmed. Non-believers always want to blame the Christians but there is nothing to confirm this. So anyway, I brought these forward due to the fact that they are ligitament sources and I didn't know where you got yours from.

It is no wonder you felt the one was from a Christian website as it is written by a Christian of that time. I am not claiming that his is non-biased or even more or less correct than the others but I felt that since all of them were of the same time period that I should include all three.

 

[razzelflabben]

I notice alot of creationists come here and make grandiose proclaations about the evidence, but I have to ask, are you really capable of making a judgement on this evidence? Do you really understand it sufficiently well to actually make a good contribution to the debate? or are you just toeing the party line? I dno't mean to come across as agressive in this post, but it does concern me that many of the creationist posters are not really adressing any of the evidence and are not actually learning anything about the opposing view, preferring to just flippantly dismiss anything that disagrees with their preconcieved worldview.

Perhaps others (even myself) are guilty of doing the same, however the difference I notice with the evolutionists, is that we tend to put forth a significant amount of evidence and analysis of the evidence, and this is something I think is lacking from the creationist side.

To the creationists, please recognise that you do not know it all, and you are not all experts on every facet of science, and please read the evidence that the evolutionists put forth. If you have a problem with it, please try to make clear in detail what your problems with the data are, and then perhaps you might either stand a better chance of convincing the opposition that you are right, or allow them to provide a better explanation and help you to learn. Flippant dismissals get nobody anywhere, and merely add to the frustration of those who often spend a good deal of time writing out lengthy responses to your problems.

I hope that we can all discuss the issues sensibly and maturely,

Jet.

Jet, it has been a while. I don't have time to read this entire thread at the moment but I did want to thank you for saying what I have said on the issue of evolution and creation, that we need to listen to each other and learn from each other rather than flippantly ignore or attack each other. I one problem I have with you statement however, is your idealism of the evolutionist. It is very difficult to learn from a group of people that attack rather than discuss. Case in point, I was given an article to read. I read the article and brought up what the article said, a word of caution that this was not equal to fact and should not be viewed as proof of evolution but rather information that we could explore in more depth. When I brought up that part of the article, evolutions accused me of not reading the article, not understanding it, not trying to learn and a whole host of other things that I care not to go into at this time. It seems to me that on the whole, evolutionists think that the creationists don't listen and the creationists think that the evolutionists don't listen and the truth it that neither group listens but only talks and asserts that they know it all. That they can do all the teaching and none of the learning. I assure you as a teacher that the most learned person among us still has things to learn from the least of us.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I too knew the story but had not heard that she was the reason the library was burned, as there is no known history to cite who burned the library.

I understood that without Hypatia, and with the growing religious turmoil and associated pressure, the library fell out of favor with the people of the day, and was actually destroyed twice, initially by the Ottomans [Muslims] and then by a Christian group. And that the library went down largely because there was no one to defend it. I'm not going to confirm any of that at this time. That was just the impression I had. The library wasn't burnt because of Hypatia directly or immediately. But that was so far as I can see the moment the dark ages began.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I fear that with the misquided outlook you state that there is a danger but it is to Christians.

The danger will be to all Americans, and will begin the moment any religion posesses the powers of state. And my outlook is not misguided. It is informed, rational, and well-reasoned.

Christians have been in "force" since this country was started and the government was ran by the religious men of old. It has never been a problem,

Partly because the deists were dominant. The first six presidents were all deists for example. And partly because those who remained remembered why Americans fled Europe in the first place, and what they did to each other when they got here.

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Initially, there was no mention of God on our money. References to God tended to be vague and charitable references to our "creator" whomever or whatever the people wanted to believe that to be. And intially, there was no pledge of allegiance. Why should there be in a nation of volunteers? And the country was largely secular, just as I said, until the next "great awakening" at the turn of the 19th century.

"By the end of the 18th century, many educated Americans no longer professed traditional Christian beliefs. In reaction to the secularism of the age, a religious revival spread westward in the first half of the 19th century."
--Wikipedia

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
--Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams

what is happening now is that secular society wants to eliminate anything Christian in nature and then claims that it is the Christians causing all the problems.

Only because they make up wild, paranoid, and fallacious comments like this one. Secular society wants to protect the right to be secular, that's all. The rest is totally fabricated defensive propaganda typical of Christian paranoia.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
-- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

The Christian faith has been a part(in so much as the doctrine of those who wrote it) of government from the very beginning. Some of those who wrote the constitution of the US and other early governmental manuscripts were Christian and others were Deists but nearly all were God believing men who put forth that as a foundation to build this nation.

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.

Yes they all believed in a god. But they didn't believe in magic, and all of them knew better than to allow any religion the powers of state.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

I too fear this a possibility but it is not due to Christianity or The Christian right. But again we must stay focused and this is off topic.

Sadly, you have no idea what you're talking about. But as it is off-topic, I will hold back my rant for another time.

I have several problems with this. (1) Yeshu isn't Yeshua, (2) "Hangiing" is a far cry from crucifixion. (3) Sorcery (then as now) can mean many things, and usually doesn't mean that the practitioner has any real powers.

1. http://www.ariel.org/qayeshua.htmlThe name Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshua. The meaning comes from the Hebrew root, yasha, meaning "to save." That is why He was named Yeshua, because He will "save" His people from their sins (Mt. 1:21). Thus, Yeshua means "salvation."

It was also a common name at the time, yes? How many guys do you know today who's names mean "wise" or "great leader" or "good heart" or some such? Any of them will work for this purpose. So some guy with a common name was hanged instead of crucified.

Bare in mind, I am not trying to say that Jesus likely didn't exist. I'm only trying to show you why the archaeological community says there is no proof that he did.

2. Is this reference to my statement or one that you are making?
3. My only claim is that in antiquity there are references to His miracles. If you wish to dismiss them as improbable then that is your choice. You asked for sources that cited His miracles and this substanciates them.

I must have missed that. I heard some circumstantial hearsay as to the man himself, and to his teachings, but not a word about his magic.

As there is no mention of Christ I will concede that this does not give historical support to Jesus Himself but it does give evidence that under extreme circumstances His diciples refused to denounce Him.

In Helter Skelter, (which is a fascinating book) attourney Ed Bugliosi laments having great difficultly finding any reliable witnesses to testify against Charles Manson. Why? Because so many of them feared to confess anything even in private because they believed that Manson, though incarcerated many miles away, could still hear anything they might say about him, due to his psychic powers and perhaps astral projections. There was also the problem of his revelations, and of the prophesies in Revelations that he had come to fulfill, and then there were his miracles, such as the time when "the family" rode in a school bus which Manson made fly. When I read Helter Skelter, I wondered how anyone could believe the things they did about Manson in the supposedly enlightened modern age. Then I thought back a couple thousand years, and wasn't at all surprised at how people spoke of Jesus at the time.

Please give me examples that refer to Krishna or Dionysus in sources other than their own religious dogma. Please cite those "outside" sources that claim they were crucified or that they lived at all.

We can't even prove Matreya really exists, and he's supposedly here right now! So admittedly, the greater antiquity is a problem there, as is the fact that powerful leaders also took the names of these gods as their own. So there is no archaeological evidence of them, but there is circumstantial evidence of that, just as there is for Jesus.

Bar-Serapion associates "the wise king" with other figures who are known to exist. But that still doesn't confirm that this "wise king" ever did, which he certainly didn't, at least in the capacity of a monarch.

He is talking about real people here and then simply brings in a mythical figure for what purpose? This just isn't logical.

I really do think some Christians must misunderstand things on purpose. Bar-Serapion may have believed that "the wise king" existed, probably because Christians said he did. But he apparently didn't know that he wasn't a monarch, so his information isn't very accurate, and his comment still wouldn't verify the existence of Jesus.

This is evidence that such beliefs existed only a century and a half after Christ. This is very supportive of the beliefs held by the early Christians and far closer to the actual time of Christ than most historical references of other figures in history.

Regardless, your argument here is not with me, it is with the world of professional archaeologists.

what you've presented so far indicates that James' ossuary could have been the only archaeological evidence of Jesus, but that there is no other in the absence of that.

You talk of double standards and dishonesty on the side of creationists and then you say this?

Yes, I made an honest and accurate statement.

I fear that blindness is not only a disability on the side of creationists. I would hope that you would be consistant with your admission of what constitutes evidence and what does not. You use as "evidence" such as other religious manuscripts and claim them as valid but when non-biblical sources are shown you call them non-archaelogical. It seems to me that by using non-Biblical sources to document Biblical concepts would be far better than citing other religious dogma as "more" archaeological.

I'm going to dismiss all these false accusations on the assumption that with my explanation in the previous post, you now realize your error, and won't accuse me of this sort of thing again.

I have found in this thread that these types of issues are based on your interpretation and on mine. I find that we both feel we hold the correct interpretation and so this argument becomes redundant and somewhat boring. I would be glad to answer anything that I miss or snip if you really feel it is important to our discussion; so feel free to bring them up as you have here.

On this particular quote, I felt it was not worth my time arguing as you are very set into your position and I in mine. It becomes more subjective rather than evident. The same goes for the quotes on the Sotah ritual. It is to my mind somewhat frustrating that you claim that your interpretation is more valid than mine when it is something that can not be conclusive in either case. I am going by what the words (or wording) of the text. If you bring in another word and claim it is there when it is not then I can't agrue against a straw man.

I strongly object to this accusation. I have never presented any strawman, nor brought in any other word that wasn't already there. But you have by bringing in other meanings and hidden messages in many of the passages we've discussed. I am going only by the literal verbatim translation and resent your insinuations of dishonesty.

So I have determined that the best time spent is on those areas that reduce interpretation as much as possible. I also feel that sometimes it is best to condense the argument. Some quotes relate to others and can be answered at the same time.

So I guess I won't get any answer to posts 207-209 or 251-262. That's 15 posts which have all been ignored only to be told now that you're bored?! Why am I not surprised? You allege my dishonesty and allude to my errors which you have never listed, while I disprove every point you ever tried to make, and now you tell me I am not worth your time? Figures.

And do you know what is worse? In the last five years or so of debating these issues online, you have been hands-down the most honest and the most accountable by far, yet you're still not being either now.